2015년 부가가치세 및 소비세 판례회고

This paper deals with Supreme Court decisions rendered in 2015, which have precedent meaning among the Supreme Court cases about the value-added tax and the consumption tax. Eight decisions were selected, and their purports of decisions were carefully reviewed and analyzed. In determining whether any goods fall under a kind of ‘rights having property value’ or not, the Supreme Court Decision 2015Du2284(Dec. 10, 2012) suggests that they should have ‘practical availability’ as well as their ‘economic exchangeable value.’, If, however, ‘practical availability’ means ‘practicality’ at the time when transactions are concluded, it is a matter enough to be judged in view of ‘rights.’ Therefore, it does not have to be taken into consideration as an element of ‘property value.’ Further, if ‘practical availability’ is a concept taking into account later occurring causes for invalidation, judging it in the concept of ‘goods’ is not proper, since it is a matter to be judged in view of ‘supply’ of goods. The Supreme Court Decision 2013Du22291(Jun. 11, 2015) clarifies that the wording ‘the time when the offer of labor is completed’, which is ordinary time of supply of services, means the time when the person who receives such services are put in a position to be able to use the product of offered labor through the actual provision of labor. In the provision of services subject to interim payments, the Supreme Court Decision 2015Du1588 (Aug. 19, 2015) sets a precedent that the time of providing services should be interpreted in a different way in accordance with the extended time of payment through mutual agreement; where a contract is terminated, the time of already provided services should be interpreted as the time of termination. We cannot, however, conclude that in cases where value of services provided until such termination is not definitely determined; the time of termination should be time of supply for services. On the premise that if a business operator, who constructs and parcels out an apartment subject to taxation, supplies ‘right to use site’ to its acquisitor, such supply shall fall under exempt business, the Supreme Court Decision 2012Du28056 (Nov. 12, 2015) rules that consulting fees, etc. paid out in the process of borrowing land purchasing fund shall not be deducted from tax amount for sales as ‘input tax involving exempt business,’ regardless of whether they are the capital expenditures or not. Moreover, with respect to the proportional distribution of common input tax amounts, this Decision clearly clarifies the meanings of ‘expected value of provision’ and ‘expected area to be occupied for the business.’ In cases where after business having been registered under another person's name tax invoices are issued in such a content as different from actual trading, the Supreme Court Decision 2015Do10949 (Oct. 15, 2015) regards the person actually issuing them as the holder of the title; regards the holder of the title as a principal offender issuing fictional tax invoices, and the actual employer as a co-principal offender for such a crime. However, in cases where business has been registered under another person's name, the actual employer should be regarded having issued such fictional tax invoices; there not being no actual trading, the actual employer should be regarded as a principal offender issuing false tax invoices and the holder of the title as the co-principal offender respectively. With respect to claim for reassessment of the liquor tax on the imported alcoholic beverages, the Supreme Court Decision 2014Du44830 (Mar. 12, 2015) is the first case clarifying that two years of period for claim for reassessment under the former Customs Act shall apply for reassessment; that where a disposition for refusal is taken against a claim for reassessment raised after the elapse of period of claim for reassessment, such disposition shall not subject to appeal litigation. The Supreme Court Decision 2013Du16074 (Dec. 23, 2015) rules that although the period of application for approval on Carrying Out of Unpaid Taxes under individual consumption tax and the period of application for exemption of customs duties is different from each other, since carrying out of unpaid taxes system under the Individual Consumption Tax Act is separate from exemption of customs duties under the Customs Act, the latter period of application shall not apply preferentially.